Wednesday, March 18, 2009

George W. Bush: When Country Trumps Politics

Regardless of what one thinks about former President George W. Bush, one has to admit that he has class and integrity. His eight years as Commander-in-Chief was full of controversy and vitriol from the left and from the media. Every word was scrutinized. Every speech was made fun of. Every decision was mocked. G Dub went through a lot as our President, and he persevered, without compromising, through it all.

Here is another reason why I think we should at least admire the man. Not only did G Dub accept President Obama with open arms even though Obama essentially ran against G Dub and accused him of many things and the two men are virtually polar opposites, W. continues to show his integrity by putting his country over politics.

In his first public speech since the inauguration of Obama, G Dub refused to criticize the current President because "I love my country a lot more than I love politics. I think it is essential that he be helped in office." Obama, the former President said, "deserves my silence." He went on to add:


I think it's time for the ex-president to tap dance off the stage and let the current president have a go at solving the world's problems. If he wants my help and I agree with him, I'll give it.

If only all former Presidents and politicians practiced what W. is doing. G Dub has more class and integrity than all of the living Presidents. It would be easy for him to criticize the opposing party that seems to be undoing everything that he accomplished and set up in 8 years such as protecting innocent life, staying until victory is accomplished in Iraq, lowering taxes on all American citizens, etc. It would be easy for him to be like all of the other politicians in America, but instead, W. has taken the higher road and chosen to remain silent and let Democracy run its course.

W. believes in America. And his words and actions are evident of that. If only more would learn from his example. DC would be less hectic and the political process would run much smoother. If only leaders would have integrity and class like our former President, things would get done because there would be a whole lot less talking and a lot more doing.

So although you may not have agreed with much that W. did in office, everyone should respect him for his class and integrity. Very few politicians who have been ridiculed and hated like he has would ever show such respect and class. He has turned the other cheeck and is letting history determine his legacy. Without a doubt, he will go down as controvesial yet as a man with integrity.


“I want to say something about Barack Obama. Now, he was not my first choice for president. But when he won, I thought it was good for the United States of America. I was deeply touched and deeply moved when I saw African-Americans weeping on TV saying, ‘I never thought it was possible.’ I want the president to succeed. I love my country a lot more than I love politics. I think it is essential that he be helped in the office . . .

“My staff did a fabulous job. I had a great chief of staff named Josh Bolten who walked in in the summer of '08, and he said: ‘Whoever wins, we're going to help them on the transition.’ And it's important that Obama had the support from us. And now he's in the Oval. And there's no way to describe what it means, the sense of responsibility that comes. And I can't help him any more than this: I'm not going to spend my time criticizing him.”

Saturday, March 7, 2009

The Slavery of the Unborn: Why Abortion Reduction Is Not Pro-Life

Since the heat of last year's Presidential election, I have been tracking the push for abortion reduction. The idea is to compromise on the divisive issue of abortion. To proponents the argument goes that eliminating abortion is not practice rather we should focus on the reasons for abortion such as economic status, poverty, rape, etc. On the other hand, abortion is the taking of life. Therefore, abortion reductionist propose that the answer to the issue of abortion is not eliminate or increase abortions, but to reduce it.

I have made it clear that this is no compromise or an answer in any way. Murder is murder, regardless of the number. It is simply appalling that one would call themselves pro-life and yet support any legislation or philosophy that allows abortion. It should also be stated that many proponents voted for President Obama last year and has already made executive decisions that will lead to the increase of blood shed, not a decrease as we were all promised.

An article has been written that deals with this issue that is a must to read by Frank Beckwith. He makes some great points on how abortion reduction is no solution at all.


I and other pro-life activists have worked tirelessly over the years to reduce the number of abortions, but a numerical reduction is not our only goal. The prolife position is that all members of the human community, including the unborn, have inestimable and equal worth and dignity and thus are entitled to the fundamental protection of the laws. Reducing the number of these discretionary acts of killing simply by trying to pacify and/or accommodate the needs of those who want to procure or encourage abortions only reinforces the idea that the unborn are subhuman creatures whose value depends exclusively on someone else’s wanting them or deciding that they are worthy of being permitted to live."

He is exactly right. By keeping abortion legal, the unborn remain "subhuman creatures" who are not given the right to live simply because someone else doesn't want them around. By definition, that is murder. He goes on to add:

Consider this illustration. Imagine if someone told you in 19th century America that he was not interested in giving slaves full citizenship, but merely reducing the number of people brought to this country to be slaves. But suppose another person told you that he too wanted to reduce the number of slaves, but proposed to do it by granting them the full citizenship to which they are entitled as a matter of natural justice. Which of the two is really “against slavery” in a full-orbed principled sense? The first wants to reduce the number of slaves, but only while retaining a regime of law that treats an entire class of human beings as subhuman property. The second believes that the juridical infrastructure should reflect the moral truth about enslaved people, namely, that they are in fact human beings made in the image of their Maker who by being held in bondage are denied their fundamental rights.

Just as calling for the reduction of the slave population is not the same as believing that slaves are full members of the moral community and are entitled to protection by the state, calling for a reduction in the number of abortions is not the same as calling for the state to reflect in its laws and policies the true inclusiveness of the human family, that it consists of all those who share the same nature regardless of size, level of development, environment or dependency.

This begs the question, is abortion the next civil rights issue? Aren't the unborn having to fight for their right to exist freely? Abortion is as appalling as slavery. And like our ancestors, many in America ignore the atrocities going on around us. We declare ourselves to be pro-life and yet we'll support policies and politicians who clearly are against the unborn. Shame on us. Let freedom ring. Let us celebrate life once again.